Schedule Datadog downtime windows by scope, monitor, or tags to silence alerts during maintenance. Set start, end, timezone, and recurrence for planned outages.
Schedule a downtime in Datadog
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| scope | Yes | ||
| start | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| monitorId | No | ||
| recurrence | No | ||
| monitorTags | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutating tool. It only states that it schedules a downtime and omits critical behavior such as whether alerts are suppressed, whether the downtime applies immediately or per start/end, how recurrence works, and what permissions are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, for a tool with 8 parameters and a nested recurrence object, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than useful conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, 8 parameters, and a nested recurrence object, the description is far too thin to support correct invocation. Key inputs and behavioral consequences are entirely undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, including a nested recurrence object, and the description adds no parameter meanings. It does not explain what scope expects, whether start/end are epoch timestamps, how timezone interacts, or what monitorTags does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Schedule a downtime') and names the product domain (Datadog), so an agent can distinguish it from read-only downtime siblings like list_downtimes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from cancel_downtime or mute_host, which keeps it below a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus cancel_downtime, list_downtimes, or mute_host, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or valid scope formats. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.